Content Delivery Networks Interconnection
charter-ietf-cdni-02

[Ballot comment]
My blocking comment used to read...

  We seem to have repeated discussions about what "routing" means
  in the CDNi context. Since the work item here discusses communication
  with the "routing system" w need to be pretty clear what we are talking
  about and, if necessary, nail down the interaction with the Routing Area.

Having read and re-read the charter and the background material, I conclude that it would be addressed by changing

> upstream CDN request routing system

to either

> upstream CDN Request-Routing System

or preferably

> upstream CDN system

---

Shouldn't you have removed the work items that have already been completed?

[Ballot block]
A very easily resolved issue...

We seem to have repeated discussions about what "routing" means in the CDNi context. Since the work item here discusses communication with the "routing system" w need to be pretty clear what we are talking about and, if necessary, nail down the interaction with the Routing Area.

[Ballot block]
We seem to have repeated discussions about what "routing" means in the CDNi context. Since the work item here discusses communication with the "routing system" w need to be pretty clear what we are talking about and, if necessary, nail down the interaction with the Routing Area.

[Ballot comment]
Just to make sure you thought about.

    The working group will focus on the following items:

    - A "problem statement" document providing a description of the problem
      and a common terminology.
 
    - A "use case" document describing scenarios for usage and applications
      of the CDNI solution and protocols.

Well, the WG will not focus on these, since they're done.
If you want to keep track of the documents in the charter, maybe
    After the "problem statement" and "use case" documents, the working
    group will focus on the following items:
   
    ...

Note: the draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 will hopefully be approved soon...

[Ballot comment]
Just to make sure you thought about.

    The working group will focus on the following items:

    - A "problem statement" document providing a description of the problem
      and a common terminology.
 
    - A "use case" document describing scenarios for usage and applications
      of the CDNI solution and protocols.

Well, the WG will not focus on these, since they're done.
If you want to keep track of the documents in the charter, maybe
    After the "problem statement" and "use case" documents, the working
    group will focus on the following items

Note: the draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 will hopefully be approved soon...

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the rechartering, but I do have to note one thing:
I see that the "short timeframe" phrase remains, but there's no longer an estimate of what that timeframe might be.  We have passed the original estimate of 18-24 months, and what we have are problem statement, use cases, and requirements documents.  How close are we to (or how far from) a "targeted, deployable solution" at this point?

[Ballot comment]
I'd like to call particular attention of the SEC and APP areas to the added deliverable for "CDNI URI Signing".

My understanding is that this was discussed between TSV and SEC perhaps a year ago, and the answer was "please write a draft". The working group is likely to consider http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leung-cdni-uri-signing-03.txt for adoption to fulfill this deliverable.

Early surprises are best :-)